


Journal of Magical History, Volume 24, Number 1 (December 1996)

by BeautifulSoup



Series: The Echoes Resound [2]
Category: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell & Related Fandoms, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - Susanna Clarke
Genre: AU that's not an AU, Academia, Footnotes, Letters, Love Letters, M/M, fake academic article, i don't really know how to tag this, pretend nonfiction
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-07-03
Updated: 2020-07-03
Packaged: 2021-03-04 02:15:29
Rating: Mature
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 4,373
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/24995962
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/BeautifulSoup/pseuds/BeautifulSoup
Summary: Article:READING (BETWEEN) THE LINES: A RESPONSE TO FARRAM’S “PERSONAL LIVES OR PERSONAL PREFERENCE”Author:Professor J.P. SennittAbstract:A response to Dr Farram's critique ofThe Personal Lives of the Revival Magicians, with particular focus on the nature of the relationship between early Revival magicians John Segundus and John Childermass. The argument is reinforced by recently discovered evidence in the form of personal correspondence between the two men.Or, a peek into the magical academia ofThe Echoes Resounduniverse.
Relationships: John Childermass/John Segundus
Series: The Echoes Resound [2]
Series URL: https://archiveofourown.org/series/1809493
Comments: 21
Kudos: 41





	Journal of Magical History, Volume 24, Number 1 (December 1996)

_Journal of Magical History_ , Volume 24, Number 1 (December 1996)

 **READING (BETWEEN) THE LINES: A RESPONSE TO FARRAM’S “PERSONAL LIVES OR PERSONAL PREFERENCE”  
** Professor Jackson P. Sennitt  
 _Department of Magical History, University of Durham_

I am grateful to the editors of _The Journal of Magical History_ for the opportunity to respond to Henry Farram’s article. Published early this year, Farram’s _“Personal Lives or Personal Preference: Separating the Personal from the Magical in Magical History”_ was a critique of my previous paper, _“The Personal Lives of the Revival Magicians”._

This original paper was an investigation into the lives of Revival magicians outside the realms of magic with a fairly general outlook, taking in as it did the private diaries and correspondence of Jonathan Strange, Gilbert Norrell, John Childermass, John Segundus, Thomas Levy, and Henry Purfois. It is an undertaking that I flattered myself was into relatively untrodden ground, scholarship to date having been primarily focused on the magic these men performed, with investigation of their character tending to be viewed as background scenery of little interest to the serious scholar. But how can we, I argued, divorce a man’s work from his character so entirely? We can see with a glance to any modern magician – our friends, colleagues, ourselves – that magic is inherently personal. We do the magic we feel is necessary. We develop the spells we need. The very act of performing magic is a personal act. I had never intended a paper with such a broad outlook to be regarded as the be-all-end-all of such an approach, but as the starting point of a conversation. There has always been a divide in our discipline between the theoretical and the practical, and I had hoped my paper might provide another bridge across that divide.

Farram sets out an interesting counter-argument about the importance of the scientific approach to the study of magic, and how the person of the magician is secondary to the magic they perform. He borrows from another subject to provide us with a metaphor: “The apple would still have dropped whether Newton had been married or single”. I am no physicist so cannot argue with this claim, but I do find it interesting that Farram has no argument with my discussion of Purfois (who after losing his wife in childbirth bent his skill to medical magic) or Strange (whose letters from Venice have been analysed extensively and need no further discussion here).

The main argument in Farram’s response is set against my interpretation of two magicians in particular: Segundus and Childermass. For those who missed my previous paper, I give a brief report of the arguments that Farram takes such exception to: Firstly, that John Segundus and John Childermass were, to use our modern terminology, gay men[1], and secondly, that they shared a long and devoted relationship with each other that was most likely sexual in nature.

Farram’s critique centres on my “reading too much between the lines” of their correspondence, and “projecting [my] own personal preferences and habits onto figures who are in no position to argue with such treatment”. I will leave the myriad replies I could make to these accusations, as the best way to deal with the body of Farram’s complaint is to give a greater specificity to my claim, backed up with evidence I had to omit in my previous paper due to lack of space. As Farram himself posits, “personal prejudices have no place in our discipline".

As part of the research for my forthcoming book on Segundus, I have enjoyed special permission to study the original documents held by Starecross School of Magic – including Segundus’s personal diaries and the wealth of letters belonging to him and John Childermass, sent both to others and to each other over the many years of their acquaintance and friendship.

It is easy for scholars of a particular mindset to study the diaries, letters, and writings of anyone unmarried or less open about their private lives than Casanova and come to the conclusion that they were interested in nothing more than their profession. “Personal preference”, as Farram puts it, works both ways.

First, I must pick up on Farram’s claim that I have “read … between the lines” of these documents. Here he shows his own ignorance – the historian’s job surely _is_ to read the lines of the evidence, often hunting out the truth hiding in the negative spaces that could not be bared at the time. Early 19th century attitudes to “unnatural acts” were strict and punishments severe. Has he considered that, had either man made an outright reference to a sexual or romantic relationship, and that letter or diary had fallen into the wrong hands, then one or both men could face the noose at worst, personal and professional ruin at best? Reading between the lines is necessary, particularly when researching those who fall outside their society’s borders of “decency”. Even putting aside these particular circumstances, where would history as a discipline be if the historian’s job was merely to regurgitate the writings of the past? Where is my colleague’s need for investigation, for interpretation, for discovery?

In the field of magical history there exists a certain perception of John Segundus. In my original paper, I plainly stated that far from being the saintly and celibate figure often presented by history[2], Segundus was a man who had homosexual experiences and desires. We are lucky that Segundus was a man who wrote prolifically; we are left with a wealth of diaries and letters which have, more and more in recent years, been studied with regards to magic in general, and Segundus in particular.

I will first turn my readers’ attentions to the diaries of John Segundus. These are, as far as diaries are concerned, an interesting but rather unsalacious account. Until late 1815 they are concerned mainly with his tutoring of gentlemen’s children in and around York, his concerns over his own limited finances, and his thoughts on the ongoing evolution of English Magic at the hands of Gilbert Norrell and Jonathan Strange. From 1816-1817 he becomes more interested in his care of Emma, Lady Pole and his descriptions of the various effects she has on both his own senses and Starecross generally[3]. From early 1817 onwards, the diaries predominantly describe the setting up and initial running of Starecross as a school, and the work he took on with Childermass and various Magical Societies on the translation of The King’s Book. In short, although incredibly useful for the study of general magical history, they are at first sight not the best suited to study of _the man_.

John Segundus was, by all contemporary accounts, a simple, good-natured man with an over-riding love of magic. He is described by his friend George Honeyfoot as “simply the best man I have had the pleasure to know” and by Emma, Lady Pole as “although a magician, he has the greatest common sense and kindly disposition – although he does regard one with the queerest intensity at times”. There is little to set him apart from many other men of the time, other than his seemingly supernatural ability to be at the right place at the right time: we know from his own diaries and letters that his meeting with Jonathan Strange was entirely accidental, and his first meeting with his future patroness Elizabeth Lennox a stroke of serendipity.

Despite the relative dryness of Segundus’s diaries in this regard, they give us a scaffold around which to build the layers of his correspondence, and this becomes increasingly interesting when we look specifically at the letters between him and Childermass.

Examinations of Childermass’s personal history are thinner on the ground than Segundus’s. If he ever kept a diary on anything other than his experiments in magic it has never been discovered, and he is light on personal details in his surviving letters with one exception: in his letters to Segundus. What we know of John Childermass the man has had to be unearthed from newspapers and letters between third parties. From these we get what we can assume is a well-defined shape of his character, but nothing of his own partialities. We know, thanks to her diaries, that Arabella Strange was no fan of seedcake; we would know nothing so quotidian about John Childermass but for his letters to John Segundus. In various letters he describes his dislike for the food at a particular coaching inn and his appreciation for the music of Boccherini, among others.[4]

Studying the vast body of correspondence between the two men, certain patterns arise. By the March of 1818, the letters between Segundus and Childermass become much warmer in tone than the brisk, business-like messages exchanged before – they open in scope beyond the professional news and general goings-on to include more personal allusions. The below excerpt from a letter from Segundus to Childermass, dated 3rd April 1818, is a prime example:

> _The students have shewn a great curiosity following your demonstration of Stokesey – the vitrified teacake now sits in pride of place upon the parlour mantle. Even in the week you have been away from us their enthusiasm has not waned. You claim you are no teacher, sir, but I would argue that you quite naturally are.You have certainly taught me more in the past year than I had ever dreamed I might know. _ [5]

We know that this tea-time magic took place on the 26th of March, as Segundus kept diligent records of the goings on of the school in his personal diary[6]. This journey of Childermass’s ended up being one of his more extended periods of absence from Starecross – shorter than his absences following the vanishing of Strange and Norrell in February 1817, yet the first he feels the need to apologise for. On April 15th 1818, he writes:

> _There is a great confusion among the ministers following your letter of 9th April. I suggested to Sir Walter that perhaps the ministers might serve themselves better with an attempt to improve their own understanding of Magic before worrying about the rest of the population. This trip is proving to be both pointless and tiring – I am sorry to be so long removed from Starecross for such petty reasons. I hope that Vinculus is behaving tolerably – I would have brought him along, but any exposure of him to the ministers generally sets everyone present to fits of nerves._ [7]

As well as this change in tone, the frequency of the letters increases. While early correspondence – starting in earnest following Childermass’s initial disruption of Segundus’s plans for a school in late 1815 – was exchanged perhaps once every two or three months, by 1820 this had increased to several letters a week. There are, of course, gaps in the correspondence which – comparing with Segundus’s diaries – align with Childermass’s periods of residing at Starecross.

Alongside the men’s letters, it is useful to view their interactions through a third party. Their friendship was well-known among their friends and colleagues, and we are lucky to have the papers of many of them to study.

It has been documented by various sources that Childermass’s death had a great impact on Segundus. In May 1841, Arabella Strange wrote to Emma, Lady Pole that:

> _… John says little about it, but I believe that is because he cannot rather than because he will not. He is as friendly and welcoming as ever, but seems very diminished. We both know [indecipherable, scribbled out] what great friends they were and it has hit him very hard indeed, although I would not want him to know how I worry for him as he would not stand for it. I try to be at hand should he wish to speak of it, while attempting to avoid being overbearing. I know myself what a heart needs to heal from such a loss_.[8]

This is a touching report of a man trying to keep himself together. We all know that the loss of a friend is a terrible thing, and we know that Segundus felt things deeply from his reactions in letters and diaries to the death of George Honeyfoot some years earlier. We are lucky to have another account from Arabella Strange, this time from her diary, regarding Honeyfoot’s death in November 1832, and so can compare Segundus’s reactions to the loss of his two closest friends:

> _I arrived at Starecross just as night fell, and was warmly received by John despite the circumstances. He is much involved in seeing to the comfort and security of Mrs Honeyfoot, and tells me he offered to stay with her in Peter-gate as some company in an empty house. Happily, she has a large family to support her and sent him away to see to his school, and he reports that she is carrying on as well as she can. He himself seems somewhat pale, but talks of his friend with warmth even if his eyes shine with tears. I wonder at my own necessity here, as Childermass preceded me by some days and is providing great support. I may at least be of some use to Mrs Honeyfoot.My circumstances are not nearly the same, but it may be of some comfort to her to speak with another widow (as she considers me). _ [9]

When we consider the two reactions, recounted by the same witness, together, the difference is clear. At the risk of “reading between the lines”, I would say that when discussing the death of John Childermass, Arabella Strange writes about Segundus as if comforting a widowed friend.

Thomas Levy worked closely with both Segundus and Childermass as a teacher at Starecross (and later Headmaster) and as a collaborator on the work on The King’s Book. Living and working in close-quarters, Levy was well-attuned to the rhythms of the school and to the character of its headmaster.

Levy, in a diary entry from May 1827, writes:

> _The atmosphere of the school these past days has been very merry indeed. The students look forward to the last few weeks of term, and we teachers feel a similar lessening of weight. The weather has been fair and mild, the garden fit to bursting with flowers of every kind. Mr Segundus seems in especially bright spirits, which we are all glad to see. These last few days he has been taken with one of his introspective moods and has spent a good deal of time in his private study. Mr Childermass has recently returned from a long journey touring the various Societies with Vinculus, and as always his return has had a marked impact. Mr Segundus is always cheered by Mr Childermass’ return, as he always has much news to share with everyone, and on this occasion – as his travels had been so wide – there was more to tell than usual. We passed a very merry evening in the warmth of the kitchen with Mrs Whetstone’s damson gin listening to the tales of his adventures.Later, as I returned to the Library to collect a volume, I heard Mr Segundus and Mr Childermass still in conversation, though night had long since fallen, and the sound of their voices and laughter did ease some of the worry I had begun to feel for our schoolmaster._ [10]

This extract has long been used to show the unlikely friendship between the two men – Childermass, as we know, having been instrumental in the initial disruptions of Segundus’s plans – and it is certainly a heart-warming glimpse of friendship. It can certainly be read as such, but evidence has recently been discovered that throws new light on these observations.

So far we have only examined letters and diaries previously published and pored over by many before myself, and examined in my original paper, and the purpose of this response is not to repeat points I have already made. I have, since the publication of the paper Farram took such exception to, been granted a great honour by way of permission from Professor Alice Hickman (Chancellor of Starecross), to publish in this paper a little of the contents of the recently discovered stash of Segundus’s private letters.[11] These were found in a previously undiscovered secret compartment in Segundus’s desk during some restoration work.

If the reading of the previously published letters requires an avid scholar to “read between the lines”, then these newly discovered letters need only a scan through to reveal the nature of the relationship.

These are intimately private letters between John Segundus and John Childermass. By reading, it can be deduced that they were sent folded inside the “professional” letters (many show the same date, and have no address written on the outside), and enchanted with a concealment charm (some of the letters make outright references to this, so it takes no great work on the part of the scholar to see). Although never signed with full names (it seems even with precaution they were wary of these letters being found out), the handwriting is unmistakable, and content often ties in to the letters they were sent inside.

Even at a glance they are different to previously published letters. Here is an example of one, sent to Childermass by Segundus in May 1821:

> _My dearest,  
> _
> 
> _You are missing the flowering of the wisteria – it is quite as though the courtyard has been overtaken by a Faerie wedding party, and the fragrance is simply divine. I know how you appreciate such a sight (try as you may to seem unmoved – I saw you last spring holding a blossom beneath your nose and smiling! I must admit that the sight stole the breath from me, as long as you promise not to mention it when you return).  
> _
> 
> _The joys of spring are here making way for the wonders of summer, although it remains spring in my heart. You, however, were absent far too often for us to make the most of the season, and I feel we must make up for it upon your return.  
> _
> 
> _You mention that you should return within the week, but that the promise of a kiss and warm welcome may urge you on quicker. I was appalled that you do not seem to think that a kiss will be yours upon the first opportunity, and when have I ever provided you with a welcome that was less than warm? (Upon writing this question, I have remembered several occasions from the distant past, so let me amend: when in the last four years?)  
> _
> 
> _Indeed, I may promise you a very warm welcome, if the spirit of spring still swimming through my veins remains another week – I say again, you have chosen a most inopportune time for this journey!_

Dr Farram would, I am sure, explain this letter as an expression of a male friendship normal during the time period, and there are many who would agree with him. It would be remiss of me to ignore these changes in norms: two male friends would be unlikely to discuss kisses and warm welcomes with each other today, but it was not unusual in the early 19th century for men to be more effusive than they are today. It is what Crompton calls “the friendship problem” in regards to the “cult of romantic friendship” of the time[12], but we cannot ignore the lack of precedence of such warmth in either Segundus’s or Childermass’s other correspondence.

Let me cast back to the earlier letter from Childermass, from April 1818. The letter quoted above was dated to the 15th of April 1818. Within this new set of private letters is another letter from Childermass dated the same, and as there are no post marks or seals upon it, we can surmise that the letters were sent as one. This particular letter leaves us with little doubt of what passed between the two men. I will not quote the entire letter here, as it reaches almost three pages in length, but some excerpts are illuminating:

> _I cannot rid my mind of all I am missing being away from you. Your parting words have stayed with me, and the sight of you the morning I left is serving to keep me warm enough at night.  
>  …  
> Since I have been gone, I have put much thought into my return. That is to say, I have put much thought into how I would best keep you abed upon my return. Your lips are always keen for kisses, and I have grown so hungry that I may spend some time devouring them, but I shall not stop there, not when there is the whole of you to taste, the cries I can wring from you to hear.  
> …  
> I think I should perhaps be ashamed of the lust you have stirred in me – but then, I have never been much swayed by notions of shame, and even if I were then the image of you reading these words would be enough to move me past it. Are you blushing prettily? Are you reading this alone, growing hard for me? Do not be ashamed if you are, I pray: I have grown hard writing this, thinking of all the ways I long to touch you and taste you and fuck you when I return. You must let me know if I have stirred you: I know I will be thinking tonight of you - holding my letter in one hand and your beautiful cock in the other as you lie in bed - as I take myself in hand._

This, I believe, is a letter that even Dr Farram would struggle to read in any way other than that which seems obvious: John Segundus and John Childermass formed a sexual relationship in mid-late 1817 or early 1818, which seems to have lasted until Childermass’ death in early 1841. These are, in fact, the milder sections of this particular letter: in order to protect Dr Farram’s delicate sensibilities, I have avoided the most graphic segments.

In case we begin to think of this as something one-sided, Segundus, in his reply of April 18th, answers Childermass’ questions:

> _Have no doubts: You always stir me, sir, and your imagination was not far wrong. Your letter has kept me warm for several nights now as a constant bedside companion, but I hope it will not have to suffice for much longer. I would rather have your hand in person than on paper._

When these letters are considered along with the others the men exchanged – letters both widely republished and recently discovered – then we can come fairly easily to the conclusion that the relationship was not purely sexual, but also romantic. For evidence of this, we can look beyond their private correspondence and examine others’ observations and opinions.

I must give, once more, my thanks to Professor Alice Hickman for access to this vital new evidence, and to the editors of the _JMH_ for the opportunity to use it in this lengthy response.

A full account of the new letters will be published in my book _Snowdrops and Wisteria: The Private Letters of Two Revival Magicians_ , due for publication next June. They are currently undergoing cataloguing at Starecross Archive. It is my hope that these letters, and the further study of them by both magicians and historians, will bring to light the challenges and joys of the lives of gay men in the early 19th century.

* * *

1 There are difficulties involved in this application of modern terms to historical figures who did not have the language we do now to describe themselves, but this is not the place to discuss these – there is lively discussion taking place among queer historians and theorists that anyone interested need cast only a cursory look over that area of their institution’s library to find.[return to text]

  
2 This widespread opinion of Segundus is largely due to Ambrose Twyman’s 1872 biography of Segundus, which takes the standard tone of many Victorian biographies of bowdlerisation and virtual beatification of the subject. It was written during an important time of change for Starecross Academy of Magic, and Twyman has been widely theorised to have published the biography as a way of promoting the school as he changed its focus towards university-level education.[return to text]

3 These volumes, as many readers will be aware, are priceless to scholars of fairy enchantments.[return to text]

4The most comprehensive collection of Childermass’s papers is MacPherson’s 1987 _Epistles from the Raven Steward_ , in which these and other examples can be easily found.[return to text]

5 _The Collected Letters of John Segundus_ , ed. Edwin Marshall, 1973. This letter is often used to highlight the state of relative ignorance Segundus occupied before the Revival. I have many times before eschewed this interpretation – a man who had studied theoretical magic for decades and who was in such frequent and detailed contact with Jonathan Strange about magic could not have been as ignorant as many seem to imply, and he would certainly not have set up his school if he felt such a lack of knowledge on his own part.[return to text]

6 _School of Enchantments: The Diaries of John Segundus_ , ed. Susan Maydew, 1943. As of time of writing, Frederick Townsend is working on a new publication of Segundus’s diaries, aiming for publication by early 1997. I hope this edition will be a fuller account than Maydew’s, which was rather heavily edited and leans rather more towards the fantastical than the true experience. The mid-war date of her publication rather points towards an eagerness to keep spirits up – but these are better explained in any number of recent reviews.[return to text]

7 _Epistles from the Raven Steward: The Letters of John Childermass, 1816-1830_ , ed. James MacPherson, 1987.[return to text]

8 _The Magician’s Wife: The Revival of English Magic Through Women’s Eyes_ , Gail Strachan, 1993.[return to text]

9 ibid.[return to text]

10 _Bird and Book: Reminiscences on a Century of Starecross_ , ed. Frances Sheldrake, 1919.[return to text]

11 _Personal Letters of Revival Magician Found in Old Desk_ , The Guardian, 5th August 1996.[return to text]

12 _Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in 19th Century England_ , Louis Crompton, 1985.[return to text]

**Author's Note:**

> Thanks to [@palavapeite](https://archiveofourown.org/users/palavapeite/pseuds/palavapeite), [@rubyofkukundu](https://archiveofourown.org/users/rubyofkukundu/pseuds/rubyofkukundu), and [@limivu](https://archiveofourown.org/users/limivu/pseuds/limivu) for encouraging me to actually post this piece of silliness in a serious mask which was really only written for my own entertainment. I have been out of academia for a good decade now, so apologies for any rustiness in format or style.


End file.
